This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(October 2014)

The 2008 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index rated Venezuela as a "Hybrid Regime", and as the least democratic state in South America.[1] Some human rights organizations have expressed concern about attacks against journalists, harassment of human rights defenders and poor prison conditions.[2][3][4]

Soon after President Chávez was first elected, a national referendum was called in April 1999 in which 92% of voters favored drafting a new constitution. The constitution was drafted by an elected assembly with the participation of diverse citizens' groups, and was voted on later that year in another national referendum and approved with 71.8% support among voters. The new constitution of Venezuela sought to secure a wider range of human rights, such as health care as a human right.[5] It also created an Office of the Public Defender, which includes the Human Rights Ombudsman's Office. Of the 350 articles in the 1999 constitution, 116 are dedicated to duties, human rights, and guarantees, including a chapter on the rights of indigenous peoples.[6]

The Massacre of El Amparo was a massacre of 14 fishermen that took place near the village of El Amparo, in Venezuela's western state of Apure, on 29 October 1988.[9][10][11] A joint military-police unit claimed the fishermen (who had no police records and were not known to either Venezuelan or Colombian military intelligence)[12] were a group of guerillas who attacked them with guns and grenades, with an alleged 15–20 minute exchange of gunfire occurring at a range of 20–30m.[13] A case taken to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) concluded in 1996, with the IACHR ordering Venezuela to pay over $700,000 in reparations to next of kin and surviving victims.[10]

With increasing instability of the political system in the face of economic crisis, Venezuela saw two coup attempts in 1992; one of which was led by future president Hugo Chávez. Both failed, and in the process of resisting the coup attempts, government agents were reported to have killed forty people, both civilians and surrendered rebels, either as extrajudicial executions, or through the use of disproportionate force.[17] Arbitrary detentions numbered in the hundreds, and continued for some time after the events, and involved student leaders and other civic leaders not connected with the coup attempts. Freedom of expression was suspended for two months in the February case, and three weeks in the November case, and involved censorship of the media. A series of demonstrations in March and April calling for the resignation of President Carlos Andrés Pérez and the restoration of constitutional guarantees were met with state violence including indiscriminate police firing into crowds, with a total of 13 deaths.[17] A number of members of the press covering the protests were severely injured by police.[17] Although participants in the February coup attempt were tried under the regular military justice system, in response to the November coup attempt the government created ad hoc courts based on the 1938 legal code of Eleazar López Contreras, drawn up twenty years before the transition to democracy. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the courts unconstitutional, but on the grounds that the President had neglected to suspend the relevant constitutional rights (right to a defence, right to be tried by one's natural judge) rather than on the due process grounds for which they were criticised.[18]

During the 1989–1993 Perez period the violent repression of protest was commonplace, with one of every three demonstrations repressed. During the Caldera administration it fell, and toward the middle of this the proportion of demonstrations repressed had fallen to one of every six.[19]

Freedom ratings in Venezuela from 1998 to 2013. (1 = Free, 7 = not free)Source:Freedom House

Shortly after Hugo Chávez's election, ratings for freedom in Venezuela dropped according to political and human rights group Freedom House.[20] In 2004, Amnesty International criticized President Chavez's administration's handling of the 2000 coup, saying that violent incidents "have not been investigated effectively and have gone unpunished" and that "impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators encourages further human rights violations in a particularly volatile political climate".[21] Amnesty International also criticized the Venezuelan National Guard and the Direccion de Inteligencia Seguridad y Prevención (DISIP) stating that they "allegedly used excessive force to control the situation on a number of occasions" during protests involving the 2004 Venezuela recall.[21] It was also noted that many of the protesters detained seemed to not be "brought before a judge within the legal time limit".[21]

In 2005, Central University of Venezuela professors Margarita López Maya and Luis Lander, stated there was a "greater recognition of the right to protest, and this has been institutionalized."[19] The violent repression of demonstrations fell to 1 in 25 in 1998-99, and to 1 in 36 by 2002-3.[19] However, in 2008, Venezuela was ranked as the least democratic nation in South America in the 2008 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index.[1]

This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message.(March 2015)

According to the United Nations, there were 31,096 complaints of human rights violations received between the years 2011 and 2014. Of the 31,096, 3.1% resulted in only in an indictment by the Venezuelan Public Ministry.[23][24]

In 2011, NGO Provea criticized the fact that the government party PSUV selected as candidate for congress Róger Cordero Lara, who had military involvement in the massacre of Cantaura in 1982. Cordero was elected and Provea demanded his immunity be lifted.[25]

In Freedom House's report on the year 2013, President Nicolás Maduro's government was criticized for "an increase in the selective enforcement of laws and regulations against the opposition in order to minimize its role as a check on government power", which gave Venezuela's freedom rating a downward trend.[26]

During the 2014 Venezuelan protests, multiple human rights organizations condemned the Venezuelan government for its handling of the protests as security forces had reportedly gone beyond typical practices of handling protests, with methods ranging from the use of rubber pellets and tear gas to instances of live ammunition and torture of arrested protestors, according to organizations like Amnesty International[27] and Human Rights Watch.[28] Other problems during the protests included media censorship and government tolerance of violence by pro-government militant groups known as colectivos.[29] Venezuela's government has also been accused of politically-motivated arrests of opponents, most notably former Chacao mayor and leader of Popular Will, Leopoldo López, who surrendered himself in February, responding to controversial charges of murder and inciting violence, using his arrest to protest the government's "criminalization of dissent."[30][31]

In December 2014, the United States signed Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014 to impose targeted sanctions on Venezuelan individuals responsible for human rights violations as a result of the 2014 Venezuelan protests.[32][33] The law allows the freezing of assets and visa bans for those accused of using acts of violence or violating the human rights of those opposing the Venezuelan government.[34] In March 2015, the United States froze assets and revoked visas of several senior officials connected to human rights abuses in Venezuela; these sanctions were condemned in Latin America.[35]

In November 2014, Venezuela appeared before the United Nations Committee Against Torture over cases between 2002 and 2014. UN experts were allegedly dissatisfied with the Venezuelan government's delegation that was led by Deputy Interior Security Law and Policy, José Vicente Rangel Avalos and questions asked by the UN Committee were not answered accurately by him. In the five-year-old case of Judge María Lourdes Afiuni Mora, a Venezuelan delegate stated, "The prosecution did not receive complaints about the alleged rape told in a book. We suggest to the committee, why worry?", to which a member of the UN commission replied "It's very important and very serious, because it transcends the individual, affects the concept of the judiciary and the rule of law if this had happened in another country." Experts of multiple NGOs also criticized the Venezuelan governments record with human rights, with one expert stating that "only 12 public officials have been convicted of violations of human rights in the last decade that in the same period have been more than 5,000 complaints". Experts also criticized the Venezuelan National Commission for the Prevention of Torture for not being independent from the government, questioned the actions of doctors and forensic experts who examined alleged victims and asked about the judicial system's independence from other bodies of the Venezuelan government.[36][37][38]

On 28 November, the United Nations Committee Against Torture expressed "alarm" due to the reports of abuse by Venezuelan authorities during the 2014 Venezuelan protests. According to the UN committee, allegations of torture included "beatings, burnings and electric shocks in efforts to obtain confessions". The committee also called on more thorough investigations by the Venezuelan government since of the 185 investigations for abuses during the protests, only 5 had been charged. Other issues presented by the committee included the release of Leopoldo López and former mayor Daniel Ceballos from prison, which the UN committee urged.[39]

On 11 March 2015 at a UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, UN rapporteur on torture and other degrading treatment, Juan E. Méndez, stated that the Bolivarian government failed to respond to multiple requests for information to which Méndez said, "In this case Venezuela did not respond, so I've drawn my conclusions based on the lack of response, but obviously on what I know of cases. And I concluded that the government violated the rights of prisoners".[40] He also stated that the Maduro government did not comply "with the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish all acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".[40]

The freedom of the press is mentioned by two key clauses in the 1999 Constitution of Venezuela. The right to freedom of expression is set out in Article 57 and Article 58 of the Constitution. The right to express opinions freely without censorship (Article 57) and the right to reply (Article 58) are generally in line with international standards. However, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expressed concern about Article 58 of the Constitution, which provides that "Everyone has the right to timely, truthful, impartial and uncensored information." The Commission took issue with the right to "truthful and timely" information arguing that this is "a kind of prior censorship prohibited in the American Convention on Human Rights."[41]

The issue of press freedom in Venezuela is complicated by the way in which the private media's strong opposition to the Presidency and policies of Hugo Chávez has extended to support for non-electoral means of removing him from office, including the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. In May 2007 RCTV's terrestrial broadcast licence was not renewed on the basis of its support for the coup; it continues to broadcast by satellite and cable. After RCTV lost its terrestrial broadcast licence, private television media remained opposed to the Chavez government, but more government spokesmen were presented.[57]

In March 2009 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concluded two cases brought against Venezuela by the private Venezuelan TV stations Globovisión and RCTV. It concluded that the Venezuelan government had failed to do enough to prevent and punish acts of intimidation against journalists by third parties, as required by the American Convention on Human Rights.[58] In May 2009 Venezuela's Supreme Court denied a request for a restraining order brought by a charitable foundation against RCTV and Globovision. The foundation had argued that the TV stations had incited violence and encouraged a coup d'état against the government, and that this was a violation of Article 58 of the Constitution. The foundation also accused the stations of false reporting over alleged links between FARC and the Chavez government. The Court said a restraining order required an "immediate and executable" threat.[unreliable source?][59]

There have been problems with Venezuela's justice system throughout its democratic period (since 1958).[60] In addition to weak legislative oversight, the Venezuelan military exercises more authority over the judicial process than in most other countries. Crimes against "the independence and security of the nation, against liberty and against the public order" may be sent to military judges, and the armed forces control most law enforcement relating to border areas, actions by military personnel or by civilians in military-controlled areas, and crimes covered by both military and civilian law.[61] Venezuelan law gives the police more authority than it does in most countries, and they have a central role in initiating and operating judicial proceedings; "the police have gradually assumed many of the functions of both the [Justice Ministry] and investigating judges".[62] "This power has allowed abuses to spread throughout the judicial process", including regular use of false witnesses, invented facts and destroyed evidence, and false charges, as well as the defiance of court orders, protection of accused officials, and harassment of political activists.[62] It has also meant that the justice system has long been particularly poor at investigating alleged abuses by state agents.[63]

A 1993 Human Rights Watch report declared that "the administration of justice is in crisis. [Civilian] courts are undermined by politicization, corruption, inefficiency and lack of resources."[13] Part of the problem was identified as the "pivotal role" of the judge in criminal trials in managing investigations, including directing the Judicial Technical Police. Complex cases can overwhelm even conscientious judges, and the system easily provides "plausible cover for judicial inaction".[64] The report noted that "the perception is widespread - among lawyers, judges and fiscales as well as ordinary citizens - that corruption has tainted every level of the judicial system..."[64] Prior to 1991, the appointment of judges (via the Judicial Council) was said to be "frankly partisan"; subsequently, open competition and objective criteria mitigated the influence of politics to an extent.[65]

A major long-term problem has been the failure of justice arising from structural delays in the justice system:[65] in 1990 the average court received 675 new cases, and reached decisions on 120. In Caracas the average court took 286 days to complete the investigation phase of trials, against the legal maximum of 34; and 794 days to reach the sentencing phase, against the legal maximum of 68. As a result of the judicial backlog, many prisoners eventually convicted will have spent longer in detention at the time of sentencing than the maximum sentence permitted for their crimes. The backlog also contributes significantly to the overcrowding of Venezuela's prisons.[chronology citation needed][65]

Venezuela is a country where the political opposition alleges that there are political prisoners. Human rights and legal policy groups say that there are more than 40 political prisoners in Venezuela, and that 2,000 Chávez opponents are under investigation.[66] Venezuela's political opposition complains that the justice system is controlled by the government and is used as a political instrument against Chavez' opponents.[67] The opposition cites corruption charges filed against a variety of opposition figures, including opposition leader Manuel Rosales, former Defense Minister Raul Baduel, and former Governors Eduardo Manuitt and Didalco Bolivar.[68]

The opposition also claims that government of Hugo Chávez targeted university students. Some have been jailed under charges of "destabilizing the government," or "inciting civil war." Students have launched hunger strikes over the government's treatment of alleged political prisoners.[69]

In 2007, Eligio Cedeno, then President of Bolivar-Banpro Financial Group, was arrested in a crackdown by Venezuelan officials on individuals circumventing government currency rules to gain U.S. dollars. On 8 February 2007, Cedeño was accused by the Venezuelan Attorney General of aiding Consorcio MicroStar with illegal dollar transactions.[70][71][72][73] Over the next year prosecutors repeatedly failed to turn up for court dates, leading to accusations that the case was being made to take unnecessarily long due to a lack of evidence.[74] Partly as a result, the United Nations' Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in September 2009 declared Cedeno's detention arbitrary.[75]

Held in jail pending trial for 34 months, Cedeño was paroled on 10 December 2009. By the 19th Cedeño had fled to the United States, where he was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement until 23 December 2009 when he was released on parole pending an immigration hearing.[76]

Cedeño claims that he became a target of the Chávez government, as a consequence of his support for political opponents of Chávez.[77][78]

Richard Blanco, a male local government official from Caracas, was arrested in Caracas in August 2009, charged with inciting violence and injuring a police officer during a demonstration. Amnesty International said that "his detention appears to be politically motivated", saying that the video evidence provided to support the charges did not show any evidence of violence or incitement by Blanco. Amnesty asked for his liberation.[81][82] He was freed on bail in April 2010.[83]

Human rights groups consider López as "Latin America's most prominent political prisoner".[84] On February 18, Leopoldo López turned himself in to the Venezuelan National Guard after leading protests in the county.[85] López turned himself in among thousands of cheering supporters, who, like him, wore white as a symbol of nonviolence. He gave a short speech in which he said that he hoped his arrest would awaken Venezuela to the corruption and economic disaster caused by socialist rule. The only alternative to accepting arrest, he said while standing on a statue of Jose Marti, was to “leave the country, and I will never leave Venezuela!”[86] Hours after the arrest, President Maduro addressed a cheering crowd of supporters in red, saying that he would not tolerate "psychological warfare" by his opponents and that López must be held responsible for his "treasonous acts."[87]

López was denied bail and is being held in the Ramo Verde military prison outside of Caracas.[88][89] In a July 2014 press release, Lopez' wife stated that his visitation rights had been revoked and that he was now subject to psychological tortures including isolation.[90] Chilean lawyer and secretary of a mission of Socialist International, José Antonio Viera-Gallo, stated that in the case of López, Socialist International "confirmed human right violations against a political leader" giving examples of authorities sounding loud sirens preventing communication when López and others tried to communicate with their families .[91]

On February 19, 2015 Ledezma was detained by the Bolivarian Intelligence Service at his office in the EXA Tower in Caracas without a warrant. In the operation, the security forces made warning shots to the air to disperse a crowd that was forming. He was then transported to SEBIN's headquarters in Plaza Venezuela. His lawyer declared that the charges for his detention were unknown.[96][97][98][99][100]The New York Times stated that Ledezma was arrested by the Venezuelan Government after accusations made by President Nicolás Maduro about an "American plot to overthrow the government" that he presented a week before Ledezma's arrest.[101] Ledezma mocked the accusations stating that the Venezuelan government was destabilizing itself through corruption.[102] The United States denied the accusations by President Maduro and stated that "Venezuela’s problems cannot be solved by criminalizing dissent".[101]

Human rights groups quickly condemned Ledezma's arrest and the similarity of the case to Leopoldo López's arrest was noted by The New York Times.[101]Amnesty International condemned Ledezma's arrest calling it politically motivated, noting the similar cases of arrests made by the Venezuelan Government in what Amnesty International described as "silencing dissenting voices".[103]Human Rights Watch demanded his release with Human Rights Watch’s Americas division director, Jose Miguel Vivanco, stating that without evidence, Ledezma "faces another case of arbitrary detention of opponents in a country where there is no judicial independence".[101][104]

Venezuela's present-day agriculture is characterized by inefficiency and low investment, with 70 percent of agricultural land owned by 3 percent of agricultural proprietors (one of the highest levels of land concentration in Latin America). According to the Land and Agricultural Reform Law of 2001 (see Mission Zamora), public and private land deemed to be illegally held or unproductive is to be redistributed.[6] From 1999 to 2006, 130 landless workers were murdered by sicarios paid by opponents to the reform.[106]

In 1996 Human Rights Watch concluded that "Venezuelan prisons are catastrophic, one of the worst in the American hemisphere, violating the Venezuelan State international obligations on human rights."[107] Key problems included violence (in 1994 there were nearly 500 deaths, including around 100 in a single riot[108]), corruption, and overcrowding, with the US State Department 1996 report describing it as "overcrowding so severe as to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment".[107]

"Venezuela's penitentiary system, considered one of the most violent in Latin America, has 29 prisons and 16 penitentiaries holding some 20,000 inmates".[3]

On 20 August 2012, armed prisoners in the Yare I prison complex, an overcrowded Venezuelan prison, rioted over the weekend, resulting in the deaths of 25 people. 29 inmates and 14 visitors were injured in the riot, and one visitor was killed. Venezuelan Prisons Minister Iris Varela said, "We will make them answer for this."[109]

In 2009 the Attorney General announced the creation of an investigative team to look into over 6,000 reports of extrajudicial killings between 2000 and 2007.[111]

During the 2014 Venezuelan protests it was stated that possibly hundreds of Venezuelans were allegedly tortured when detained by Venezuelan authorities[112][113] though President Maduro denied the allegations saying torture had not happened in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez became president.[113]

Since the transition to and consolidation of democracy in 1958, Venezuela developed, initially with the Punto Fijo Pact, a two-party system led by "two hegemonic and highly centralized and clientelist political parties",[114]Accion Democratica and COPEI, in what was often called "partidocracia" (partyarchy).[115] The two parties "penetrated and came to dominate so many of the other organisations in civil society, including trade unions, that they enjoyed a virtual monopoly over the political process."[116] Party organisation was extensive, apart from the Church and business associations, practically every civil society organisation was run by leaders identifying with one of the parties.[117] It was also intensive, with members risking expulsion, and thus exclusion from the party's patronage, for disobeying party decisions. It has been stated that "The Leninist principle of democratic centralism even received explicit endorsement in the AD's party statutes."[118] Elected representatives of the parties strayed from the party line so infrequently that Congressional leaders did not tally votes, relying solely on the relative sizes of the parties.[118] "Labor leaders usually refrained from calling strikes when their party was in power, and the politicized officers of professional associations, student governments, peasant federations, state enterprises, foundations, and most other organizations used their positions to further the interests of their party."[118]

Key to the maintenance of the partyarchy was a system of "concertacion" (consultation), in which the two parties would consult with each other, and with other actors (notably business and the military), seeking consensus on controversial issues. Where consensus failed, the attempts to achieve it at least mollified the opposition.[119] Concertacion also involved complicity with widespread corruption, with the parties acting as if the Punto Fijo Pact had prohibited prosections for corruption. "The courts - like the bureaucracy, the universities, and most other institutions - were thoroughly politicized along party lines and seemed never to find sufficient evidence to justify a trial or a conviction."[120] Threats to the partyarchy - that is, organisations which sought to challenge it or at least remain outside its control - were largely co-opted by a variety of tactics, including, if necessary, "paralelismo" (the creation of a parallel organisation with a similar purpose and far greater political and economic support).[121]

Only with the economic crisis, particularly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, did the system of partyarchy weaken substantially, as the resources available for patronage declined significantly. The ability to co-opt new organisations, particular the neighbourhood associations protesting the failure of public services, was weakened.[121] By the 1998 presidential elections the candidates put up by AD and COPEI won less than 6% of the vote combined.[122]

Under the previous system of partyarchy, "jobs in the public sector were allocated with calculated discrimination through the political parties, forming an important element in the stream of patronage descending from the top of each party to its bases throughout the nation."[123]

Abortion in Venezuela is currently illegal except in cases of a threat to the life of the pregnant woman.

The indigenous peoples of Venezuela make up around 1.5% of the population nationwide, though the proportion is nearly 50% in Amazonas state.[124] Prior to the creation of the 1999 constitution, legal rights for indigenous peoples were increasingly lagging behind other Latin American countries, which were progressively enshrining a common set of indigenous collective rights in their national constitutions.[125] In the beginning of the 19th century the government of Venezuela did little for indigenous peoples, more so they were pushed away from the agricultural centre to the periphery. In 1913, during a rubber boom, colonel Toman Funes seized control of Amazonas’ San Fernando de Atabapo, where 100 settlers were killed. In the following nine years, Funes destroyed dozens of Ye'kuana villages and killed several thousand Ye'kuana. In 1961 a new constitution came, but instead of improving the rights of indigenous peoples, this constitution was a step backward from the previous 1947 constitution.[125]

In 1999, a new constitution was formed, the 1999 Venezuelan Constitution. In this constitution Chávez, being =of mixed indigenous descent himself, aimed for the improvement of human rights, mainly those of women and indigenous peoples. The constitution stated that three seats should be reserved for indigenous delegates in the 131-member constitutional assembly[126] and two additional indigenous delegates won unreserved seats in the assembly elections.[127] Ultimately the constitutional process produced what was called "the region's most progressive indigenous rights regime".[128] Innovations included Article 125's guarantee of political representation at all levels of government, and Article 124's prohibition on "the registration of patents related to indigenous genetic resources or intellectual property associated with indigenous knowledge."[128] The new constitution followed the example of Colombia in reserving parliamentary seats for indigenous delegates (three in Venezuela's National Assembly); and it was the first Latin American constitution to reserve indigenous seats in state assemblies and municipal councils in districts with indigenous populations.[129]

The Yukpa received 40,000 hectares of land from the government in 2009, but one of several Yukpa leaders, Sabino Romero, opposed the government land grant initiative, calling it a "divisive measure". In mid-2010, Sabino Romero participated in a protest outside of the Venezuelan Supreme Court demanding the indigenous justice system be respected. "We have our culture, our justice system. We can judge and punish those guilty of damage to the community without our chiefs having to be prisoners under the Creole law," said Romero in an interview.[130] The indigenous peoples of Venezuela were given special rights through the 1999 constitution, however, the vast majority of these people still live in highly critical conditions of poverty as of 2011. The largest groups receive education, but only some basic primary education in their languages.

In September 2008 the Venezuelan government expelled from the country Human Rights Watch Americas Director Jose Miguel Vivanco, over the publication of a report[131] entitled "A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela",[132] which discussed systematic violations to human, civil and political rights.

In May 2009 Venezuela rejected the annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.[7] Amongst other issues raised (including failure to address unsolved murders and extrajudicial executions) the report declared Venezuela "a hostile environment for political dissent."[134] IACHR President Luz Patricia Mejía acknowledged the report's heavy reliance on Venezuelan private media sources, and recommended an internal debate at the next OAS summit.[135]

A 2010 OAS report[136] indicated "achievements with regard to the eradication of illiteracy, the set up of a primary health network, land distribution and the reduction of poverty",[137] and "improvements in the areas of economic, social, and cultural rights".[138] The report also found "blistering" concerns with freedom of expression, human rights abuses, authoritarianism, press freedom, control of the judiciary, threats to democracy,[139] political intimidation, and "the existence of a pattern of impunity in cases of violence, which particularly affects media workers, human rights defenders, trade unionists, participants in public demonstrations, people held in custody, 'campesinos' (small-scale and subsistence farmers), indigenous people, and women",[140] as well as erosion of separation of powers and "severe economic, infrastructure, and social headaches", and "chronic problems including power blackouts, soaring crime, and a perceived lack of investment in crucial sectors".[141] According to the National Public Radio, the report discusses decreasing rights of opposition to the government and "goes into heavy detail" about control of the judiciary. It says elections are free, but the state has increasing control over media and state resources used during election campaigns, and opposition elected officials have "been prevented from actually carrying out their duties afterward".[142] CNN says the "lack of independence by Venezuela's judiciary and legislature in their dealings with leftist President Hugo Chávez often leads to the abuses",[140] and the Wall Street Journal blames the government of Chavez.[141]

Chávez rejected the 2010 OAS report, calling it "pure garbage", and said Venezuela should boycott the OAS; a spokesperson said, "We don't recognize the commission as an impartial institution". He disclaims any power to influence the judiciary.[143] A Venezuelan official said the report distorts and takes statistics out of context, saying that "human rights violations in Venezuela have decreased".[144]

In October 2014, the IACHR asked for permission to assess the human rights environment in Venezuela, and commission was denied.[133]

^Coronil, Fernando, and Skurski, Julie (2006), "Dismembering and Remembering the Nation: The Semantics of Political Violence in Venezuela", in Coronil, Fernando and Skurski, Julie (eds, 2006), States of Violence. University of Michigan, pp 96–97

^"Venezuela Threatens To Close Opposition TV Station". SHOW: Morning Edition 10:00 AM EST NPR (National Public Radio (NPR); LexisNexis). 11 June 2009. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez's government is moving against this TV station, which has press freedom groups raising questions about the future of democracy in a highly polarized country.

^James, Ian (17 September 2009). "Venezuela a top concern at press freedom forum". The Associated Press (LexisNexis). Press freedom groups condemn Venezuela's recent shutdown of radio stations as part of a broader strategy by President Hugo Chávez to progressively clamp down on the private news media and they want to put a stop to it. ... Newspaper executives who lead the Miami-based Inter American Press Association say Venezuela will be at the top of their list as they gather in Caracas for an emergency forum Friday to discuss freedom of expression in the Americas.

^"US calls for free press in Venezuela, Latin America". Agence France Presse -- English (LexisNexis). 12 June 2009. The United States called Friday on the Venezuelan and other Latin American governments to stop intimidating the news media and take action to uphold a free press. ... On Tuesday, the International Press Institute, a media advocacy group, denounced the deterioration of press freedom in Venezuela and in particular the Chavez government's harassment of Globovision.

^Sanchez, Fabiola (25 January 2010). "Removal of anti-Chavez TV channel spurs protests". The Washington Post. Press freedom organizations and Roman Catholic leaders condemned RCTV's removal from cable, calling it part of a broader effort to mute government critics. ... Paris-based Reporters Without Borders said the government's move is "an allergic reaction to dissident voices within the country's leading broadcast media." ... U.S. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley echoed earlier comments by the U.S. Embassy that Washington is concerned.

^For example, through the use of nudo hecho proceedings, which involve investigations of state agents (especially police) which allow them to remain on active duty, and often delay criminal proceedings (or make them impossible, if they take so long that statutes of limitation apply) - HRW93, p15

^ abDel Olmo, Rosa (1998), "The State of Prisons and Prisoners in Four Countries of the Andean Region", p 132; in Weiss, Robert P. and Nigel South (1998, eds.), Comparing prison systems: Toward a comparative and international penology. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

^"We have openly questioned the use of the media as a principal source from which to formulate a general diagnosis of human rights in Venezuela, the use of media which have participated in an open and direct manner in political junctures that the country has lived and is living, and most of all, those which participated in an open and direct manner in the coup d'état in 2002", Mejía said. Venezuelanalysis, 12 May 2009, Venezuela Rejects Inter-American Human Rights Commission Report

^ abPrado, Paulo (24 February 2010). "OAS Report Chastises Venezuela". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 February 2010. ... issued a scathing report that accuses Venezuela's government of human-rights abuses, political repression, and eroding the separation of powers among government branches in the oil-rich country. In its sternly worded conclusion, it blames the government of President Hugo Chávez—already reeling from a recession and energy shortages that have undermined his popularity in recent months—for "aspects that contribute to the weakening of the rule of law and democracy." ... The problems include the firing of judges critical of Mr. Chávez, the shuttering of critical media outlets, and the exertion of pressure on public employees, including those of state oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela SA, to support the government at the ballot box. ... Mr. Chávez has been struggling to maintain his popularity at home amid severe economic, infrastructure, and social headaches. In addition to the downturn and ballooning inflation, the government faces mounting criticism and public protests over chronic problems including power blackouts, soaring crime, and a perceived lack of investment in crucial sectors, including roads and the all-important oil industry.

^"European Parliament OKs resolutions". UPI.com. 12 February 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2010. The members expressed concern about the movement toward authoritarianism by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's government, the European Union said Thursday in a release. In January 2010, six cable and satellite television channels were ordered off the air after they were criticized for failing to broadcast Chavez's speech on the 52nd anniversary of the overthrow of Perez Jimenez.